Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

[hanon]

 Antijon,

I guess now I understand what you are proposing : in your circuit the impedance of one side (RL circuit) should match the impedance of the other side (LC circuit) in order to have the same quantity of amperes circulating in both side (but unphased). See the equations attached below.

For     RL impedance  = LC impedance:     

         R^2 + XL^2          =  ( XL - XC )^2

R^2 + (2·pi·freq·L)^2   =   ( (2·pi·freq·L) - (1/(2·pi·freq·C)) )^2     ---->  R = ...

Madddann, do not worry, your circuit design is with 120 V. I will do it with transformers to 12 V . Then a coils around 3 ohms will give me 4 amperes. Maybe I will add a resistor after the coil to decrease the amperage

Antijon, the gif animation that you posted some weeks ago does not work. I think this site convert the gif files into an static image. Could you post it in another external link, or zipped? Thanks!

[bajac]

Here there are more supports in favor of the ironless induced coils. The following quotes are taken from the ELECTRIC POWER journal Volume III, No. 27 and dated 1891, Caryl D. Haskins stated:

[page 97, fifth paragraph of the first column]
"I will now pass on to a description of some typical Ferranti dynamos. First among these a few words are due to the original form of Ferranti alternator, which, while is no longer manufactured, still, without doubt, was a machine of marked efficiency and great originality."
Again the efficiency of this generator is referred as something out of the ordinary. Was really this type of generator out of production by 1891?

[page 97, last paragraph of the second column]
"...The machines were originally designed to give current for 10,000 ten candle-power lamps each, but have frequently carried as high as 19,000 lamps without apparent effort."
This paragraph is interesting. The generator can handle effortlessly about twice the load that it was designed for. Was this performance intended in the original design? Or, was it something unexpected?

[page 98, second paragraph of the second column]
"It has probably been already remarked that I have made mention of no regulating device for the dynamos. Mr. Ferranti makes no provision for automatic governing, nor is it needed. It must be remembered that there is absolutely no iron in the armature, and that the machine is, therefore, self-regulating to a very large degree."
The above statement is a heresy in today's electric generator field. It is well known that when a generator is loaded the rotor will break and tend to slow down, which requires the governor a) to increase the applied torque by increasing the fuel flow going into the internal combustion engine, and b) to increase the rotor magnetic field by injecting more current into the rotor coils. Why doesn't the Ferranti's alternator suffer from the break? As predicted in the published paper, the counter torque of ironless induced coils is less responsive to the load than induced coils having iron cores. The latter is a recipe for over unity.

Next step, build a prototype. I cannot wait!

[forest]

If I corectly understood that would mean Ferranti patented device with rotating ironless coils before Figuera ?

[bajac]

If I corectly understood that would mean Ferranti patented device with rotating ironless coils before Figuera ?

That is correct. The earlier core-less generator that I have been able to find is described in the patent from William Thomson.


The story for these ironless alternators has been so interesting that I have stopped any construction work in favor of reading those articles. The quotes that I referred to in the above post come from Caryl D Haskins, a person who worked with Ferranti. It is very entertaining. The narratives Mr. Haskins presents in this article for the Ferranti's electrical system cover Ferranti Methods of Distribution, Dynamos, Transformers, Fuses, and Meters. It looks like Mr Haskins was appointed by a committee to speak about the Ferranti' generator stations at Grosvernor Gallery and Deptford stations.

Why did a committee summoned Mr. Haskins to recall his experience with the Ferranti's company? I kind of think that there was a rumor about the extraordinary performance related to the Ferranti's alternators.  For example, in a paragraph, Mr. Haskins states:

[page 96, tenth paragraph of the first column]
"It has quite frequently been stated, I believe, that these two machines at the Grosvernor were run in multiple. This is in no sense true, though since the removal of these dynamos to Deptford station, they are to be connected in this manner, I understand."


My interpretation of the above statement is that the power output by the generating plant was too large to come from a single unit. The engineers did not believe it. What do you think?

[poorpluto]

Bajac,

Firstly, english is not my language and sorry for any miscommunication. This is my first post here

My intention here is to tell you Bajac that I think you're on the right track. I cannot agree more with you about the ironless core..
I hypothesized months ago when you were off of the forum that the only secret about Figuera generator is the coreless armature or output coil, but I had no time to prove it because I was completing my engineering degree. Now I am graduated and have a lot of free time (and still jobless lol)..
I have built an extremely simple device the components of which I believe all of you guys already have them. If my measurement with a cheap multimeter is sufficiently accurate, then I can say that the hypothesis is valid. Before building it, I simulated the device in FEMM 4.2 and the result of my experiment agreed with the simulation.

I am sure that I don't fully understand it, but this is the concept I use to describe the mechanism:
We have to refresh our old lesson
-------------
Properties    Electric          Magnetic
Force            V (volt)            NI (ampere turn)
Flow             I (ampere)    Flux (weber)
Impedance   Z (ohm)        S (AT/wb)
-------------
Flux linking: V = d(flux)/dt ----> I tried to replicate 1908 patent so no flux cutting
-------------
A coil with a higher permeability core means that with the same magneto motive force/MMF (and with relatively the same power if hysteresis and eddy losses kept minimum) more flux will be created (more flow). Doesn't it sound that we get "free flux"? This is what contributes to overunity when it is coupled with an output coil with low permeability core or coreless.
In a conventional transformer while operating, both the primary coil and the secondary one have the same MMF, more turns less current, less turns more current. Since they are wound in the same core material and in a closed magnetic circuit, they will also have the same amount of flux. In other words, the primary is "armed" with high permeability core to induce a voltage in the secondary and unfortunately the secondary is also "armed" so that it can fight back. The counter attack from the secondary will reduce the self inductance of the primary (lower inductance L), therefore more current will flow in the primary which means more power dissipated to heat. That event is (in my opinion) mistakenly explained that the power of the secondary is coming from the primary.

Back to Figuera's generator 1908. It very similarly appears like a transformer. But here, we "arm" only the primary with a high permeability core and we keep the secondary "unarmed". With that arrangement, the primary is still able to induce a voltage in the secondary (although lower because of high reluctance and less flux) and the secondary with its induced voltage cannot fight back the flux applied to it, it needs a lot of current to fight the primary flux back. Therefore, the self inductance of the primary will be relatively constant and no more power will be drawn and we can say that the only factor which limits the output power is the resistance and strength of the conductor to carry the current. Less resistance will help to release more power.

Here are some results of my experiment (all in rms):
Vin = 220 V 50 hz (sinusoidal from line)
R primary coil = 6 ohms
D primary = ??
R secondary coil = 0.2 ohms
D secondary = 0.8 mm

Open-secondary:
Vout = 5 V
Iin = 1.52 A (magnetizing current)

Closed:
(I)
R secondary coil + load = 1.2 ohms (I used connector wire as a load lol)
Iout = 3.8 A
Iin = 1.53 A (insignificant increase)
(II)
R secondary coil + load = 0.6 ohms (more connector wire)
Iout = 7.9 A
Iin = 1.54 A (still insignificant increase)

I did the Closed I & II test no more than 10 s because the connector wire got really hot. You can calculate the COP by yourselves. I plan to do a self loop test but many things need to be calculated. I'll get a job first lol.


Good luck